Guevara v. John Doe
- Laura Swain
- 1:21-cv-09760
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Guevara v. Corrections Officers Jhon Doe, Judge Swain dismissed Guevara’s amended civil-rights complaint after screening found it did not plausibly show constitutional violations.
Jose A. Guevara’s claims against Corrections Officers Jhon Doe #1, #2, and #3 and The City of New York were dismissed; the court also denied fee-free status for an appeal.
What happened
In Guevara v. Corrections Officers Jhon Doe, Jose A. Guevara, proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee, sued correction officers and The City of New York under a federal civil-rights law. He said that after he was transported to Rikers Island, a bag containing legal and religious books was missing and was never returned.
The court had previously allowed Guevara to amend his complaint and told him to provide facts supporting claims about access to the courts, religious practice, and the City’s responsibility. In his amended complaint, he largely repeated his earlier allegations, said a city policy required his property to be transported with him, and added claims about poor living conditions. The court found that he still had not provided enough facts to show that his constitutional rights were violated.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed the complaint under the federal prisoner-screening statute and declined to allow another amendment because the defects could not be cured by further amendment. The court also denied Guevara permission to proceed without paying fees on an appeal, certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
The detailed version
- Guevara v. John Doe · No. 1:21-cv-09760
- Laura Swain
- Apr. 18, 2022
Background
Jose A. Guevara filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Corrections Officers Jhon Doe #1, #2, and #3 and The City of New York. He was proceeding without a lawyer and without paying the filing fee. He alleged that, after being transported by bus from Downstate Correctional Facility to Rikers Island on October 1, 2021, he discovered that a property bag containing law books, legal research, and Christian and spiritual books was missing. Correction officers allegedly assured him that the property would be returned, but it was not. Guevara sought money damages.
The court previously directed Guevara to amend his complaint. It explained that his original allegations did not show that the missing property prevented him from litigating a meritorious legal claim, prevented him from practicing his religion, or significantly interfered with that practice. The court also noted that he could seek reimbursement for lost property through a state-court proceeding and that his original complaint did not support a claim holding The City of New York responsible for the alleged conduct.
Court’s analysis
The court screened the amended complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which requires courts to review certain complaints filed by prisoners against government entities or employees. The court must dismiss such a complaint if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim for relief, seeks money from an immune defendant, or falls outside the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Although courts read complaints filed without a lawyer generously, those complaints still must provide enough facts to make a claim legally plausible.
Guevara named the same defendants and made essentially the same allegations in his amended complaint. He added that a city policy required his property to be transported with him and stated that he used the missing religious book to practice his faith. The court found that these allegations still did not show a constitutional violation. Guevara also raised new allegations about poor living conditions at Rikers Island, but the court found that he did not provide enough facts showing that those conditions violated his constitutional rights.
Disposition
The court dismissed the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), which permits dismissal for failure to state a claim. Judge Laura Taylor Swain declined to give Guevara another opportunity to amend because the defects in the amended complaint could not be cured by further amendment. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the filing fee for an appeal. The opinion does not use the terms “with prejudice” or “without prejudice.”
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.